New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday suggested setting up a self-sustaining fund to provide stipend to new lawyers, and called for improving essential facilities for women lawyers on court complexes, as it opened conversation on two longstanding problems of the profession itself—financial sustainability of new entrants and professional dignity of female lawyers.
A vacation bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana issued notices to the Union of India, state governments and high courts, and also asked the Attorney General and all Advocate Generals to assist the court in formulating a structured scheme to address these issues.
“… a Young Lawyers’ Professional Assistance Fund must be created and should be established under the exclusive control of the jurisdictional High Courts or an autonomous body constituted by the Union of India and the State Governments,” the bench said while hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by filed by a group of women advocates practicing across various states
A young first-generation lawyer entering the Bar does not immediately inherit an office, a library, a stable clientele, or a predictable source of income, said the court.
During this period, many junior advocates remain dependent upon modest stipends paid by their seniors “which are often insufficient to meet even their basic living expenses”, it observed.
The absence of a steady stream of clients and the limited remuneration during these years tend to create extreme financial hardship, which eventually compels them to leave practice altogether, the court noted.
“It is this period of turmoil that often compels capable and promising young lawyers to abandon practice at the Bar altogether. We apprehend that such attrition may produce a form of professional “brain drain”, diminishing the ability of the Bar to attract and retain the young and meritorious,” said the bench.
Also Read: Indian women start with 50% representation in law school. It dips below 6% at Supreme Court
‘Visitors in their own workplace’
The court also touched upon the issues related to “accessibility, inclusiveness, and long-term sustainability” for women lawyers as the PIL brought to light the “abysmal situation” for women lawyers in Indian courts.
The PIL contended that despite women accounting for approximately 15.31 percent of registered advocates, they face “systemic marginalisation” due to the absence of dedicated Ladies’ Bar Rooms (LBRs), or “cramped” spaces lacking basic provisions.
The petition detailed how the lack of changing rooms, hygienic washrooms, and attached crèches forces women to operate as “Visitors in their own Workplace”.
The petition cited specific instances such as the Ghaziabad District Court where an area marked for an LBR was reportedly being used as a storeroom, and the Mathura District Court, where facilities were allegedly kept locked during court hours.
Representing the petitioner, senior advocate Monika Gusain argued that such a “hostile” atmosphere discourages families from supporting daughters entering the profession.
To substantiate their claims, the petitioners conducted a survey titled “Form for Basic Provisions and Amenities”, covering 69 districts and talukas.
According to the survey, in many court complexes, advocates have no choice but to sit under bridges or in borrowed spaces.
The survey highlighted that many LBRs lack even minimal amenities like tables, chairs, proper ventilation, or operational heaters and air purifiers, with many facilities only being “replenished… on the eve of bar elections” and quickly becoming defunct.
The Supreme Court noted that this survey reveals facilities are often “wholly inadequate”, lacking the essentials necessary for the “effective discharge” of professional responsibilities.
Infrastructure linked to Article 21
The Supreme Court ruled that the “provision of such essential facilities prima facie bears a direct nexus with the fundamental guarantee of life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution” and emphasised on the reality of legal practice.
“To the uninitiated, a Court Complex may simply appear to be a designated venue where legal proceedings are conducted… but it functions as a workplace where substantial portions of their (advocates’) professional lives are spent and, not infrequently, assumes the character of a second home,” the bench observed.
The court further said that the absence of these spaces disproportionately impacts women and may “discourage them from continuing practice”.
‘Basic sustenance ’
The second major issue addressed was the financial hardship faced by first-generation and disadvantaged lawyers during their formative years of practice.
In response, the court proposed the creation of a Young Lawyers’ Professional Assistance Fund, intended to be under the control of high courts or an autonomous body, to provide a reasonable monthly stipend to ensure “basic sustenance for the initial 3 years of practice”.
The court suggested a multi-pronged approach to financing this fund, including by donations from successful senior lawyers, incentivised by tax exemptions or national awards. Plus, government contributions from a portion of court fees and diversion of costs imposed by courts in judicial proceedings.
To ensure the fund’s long-term viability, the court discussed a model where beneficiaries would render professional services as associates to experienced Bar members and eventually “contribute back to the Fund” via monthly installments once they establish an independent practice.
“A framework of such nature will inspire greater confidence amongst prospective donors and contributors to the Fund,” said the vacation bench.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)